Friday, September 20, 2002

What's the beef? CNN reports that a Texas court has dismissed the second lawsuit filed against Oprah Winfrey for alleged violation of that state's "veggie libel" law.  If your reaction, like mine, was "Huh?", then you will be amazed to read the following: "Thirteen agricultural states have passed 'veggie libel' laws in recent years, which hold people liable - for civil, not criminal, penalties - for knowingly spreading false information about agricultural products."  (Wired report 1-27-98) The statute under which the lawsuit was brought is the "False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act of 1995".  I kid you not. ACLU Says 'Veggie Libel' Laws Are Patently Unconstitutional - 1-22-98 The Constitution at Work: Veggie Libel Laws and Free Speech - The Constitution Center 6:14:43 PM     (Up)skirting the issue The Washington Supreme Court has reversed convictions for voyeurism against two men who (in two separate cases) engaged in "upskirt photography", taking still pictures and video pictures of women and girls without their consent or knowledge in shopping centers.  The Court concluded that the voyeurism statute did not apply.  The statute provides: "A person commits the crime of voyeurism if, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, he or she knowingly views, photographs, or films another person, without that person's knowledge and consent, while the person being viewed, photographed, or filmed is in a place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy." The Court ruled: "Both Glas and Sorrells contend that the voyeurism statute was misapplied in their respective cases because the victims were in public places and therefore did not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy.  In Glas, both women were employees working in the public area of a shopping mall, while in Sorrells, the woman was standing in a concession line at the Bite of Seattle at the Seattle Center.  Although Glas' and Sorrells' actions are reprehensible, we agree that the voyeurism statute, as written, does not prohibit upskirt photography in a public location. *    *    * "To ascertain legislative intent, a court will first turn to the plain language of the statute. . . The voyeurism statute protects an individual 'while the person . . . is in a place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.' RCW 9A.44.115(2) (emphasis added).  Grammatically, it does not make sense to apply this statement to a part of a person's body.  It is the person who is in the place, not a part of the person.  The two categories of private places modify and define the place where a person may have a reasonable expectation of privacy.  Thus, each subsection relates to the place where the person is located (i.e., where the person is 'in').  Thus, it is the physical location of the person that is ultimately at issue, not the part of the person's body." (Pointer courtesy of How Appealing.) If a woman doesn't have an expectation of privacy under her skirt, I don't know what the concept means. This writer calls it what it is -- a subgenre of voyeurism. 5:23:29 PM

© Copyright 2002 Franco Castalone. Last update: 10/1/2002; 7:48:09 AM.